Hardney v. Warren et al

Filing 109

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 07/06/20 GRANTING 100 Motion to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order. All requests for discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34, or 36 served on or before April 26, 2020, are deeme d timely served, nunc pro tunc. Defendants shall have thirty days from the date of this order to respond to any writtendiscovery served by plaintiff that is now deemed timely served; GRANTING 103 Motion for Extension of Time nunc pro tunc; GRANTIN G 104 Motion to modify the scheduling order. The discovery deadline is extended to September 19, 2020, for the limited purpose of allowing defendants to take plaintiffs deposition; and the dispositive motion deadline is extended to December 4, 2020. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN HARDNEY,

12
13
14

No. 2:16-cv-0172-KJM-EFB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

R. WARREN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. This order addresses the following three motions: (1) plaintiff’s request for the

19

status on a previously-filed motion for extension of time (ECF No. 100); (2) defendant Kumeh’s

20

second request for an extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories (ECF

21

No. 103); and (3) defendants Kumeh and Brazil’s motion to modify the scheduling order (ECF

22

No. 104).

23

Plaintiff’s Request for Status

24

On May 12, 2020, plaintiff filed a request for status on a previously submitted motion for

25

extension of time. ECF No. 100. He states that on April 5, 2020, he requested that the April 17,

26

2020 deadline for serving requests for written discovery be extended to April 26, 2020. He

27

explains that he sought the extension because (1) he was separated from his legal materials in late

28

March when he transferred institutions; (2) he was quarantined for fourteen days due to the
1

1

COVID-19 pandemic; (3) there have been delays in the prison mail system; and (4) he has had

2

limited access to the law library and other legal resources. However, for reasons unknown, there

3

is no record of plaintiff previously filing the referenced request for an extension of time.

4

Nonetheless, his May 12, 2020 filing presents good cause to modify the discovery and scheduling

5

order. Accordingly, the court construes that filing as plaintiff’s request to modify the scheduling

6

order. So construed, the motion is granted to the extent that all requests for discovery pursuant to

7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34, or 36 served on or before April 26, 2020, are deemed timely served,

8

nunc pro tunc.

9
10

Defendant Kumeh’s Second Request for Extension of Time
Defendant Kumeh requests a second, one-week extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s

11

first set of interrogatories. ECF No. 103. Kumeh’s attorney cites to mail delays and a lack of

12

communication from her client as grounds for the extension. Id. Defendant Kumeh is granted a

13

second extension of time nunc pro tunc, to and including June 3, 2020, within which to respond

14

to plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories. Absent good cause, the court is not likely to further

15

extend this deadline.

16
17

Defendant Kumeh and Brazil’s Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order
Defendants Kumeh and Brazil move for an order to modify the discovery and scheduling

18

order to extend the current June 19, 2020 discovery deadline to September 19, 2020, for the

19

limited purpose of allowing defendants to take plaintiff’s deposition. ECF No. 104. Defendants

20

further request that the September 4, 2020 dispositive motion deadline also be extended for three

21

months until December 4, 2020. In light of the many limitations imposed by the COVID-19

22

pandemic, the motion is granted.

23

Conclusion

24

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

25

1. Plaintiff’s request for the status of a previously filed request for extension of time,

26

construed as a motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 100) is

27

GRANTED. All requests for discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34, or 36

28

served on or before April 26, 2020, are deemed timely served, nunc pro tunc.
2

1
2
3

2. Defendants shall have thirty days from the date of this order to respond to any written
discovery served by plaintiff that is now deemed timely served.
3. Defendant Kumeh’s request for a second extension of time, to and including June 3,

4

2020, within which to respond to plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories (ECF No. 103)

5

is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.

6
7
8
9
10
11

4. Defendants Kumeh and Brazil’s motion to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 104)
is GRANTED in that:
a. The discovery deadline is extended to September 19, 2020, for the limited
purpose of allowing defendants to take plaintiff’s deposition; and
b. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to December 4, 2020.
DATED: July 6, 2020.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3